A. THE CASE FOR WIND "FARMS" EXAMINED
No-one claims that wind turbines produce electricity more cheaply or
more efficiently than conventional power stations. Being unpredictable and
uncontrollable the wind is a difficult energy source to work with.
Merchant ships are not powered by sail; airlines do not use hot air
balloons. Those who advocate wind "farms" base their arguments on three
propositions:
1) that they produce energy without the problems associated with
nuclear power - risk of accident, problems of waste storage;
2) that they do not deplete fossil fuels, which are finite;
3) that they produce energy without harmful emissions - C02, SO2 and
Nitrogen Oxides, gases associated with global warming and acid rain.
For these arguments to be valid it is clear that wind "farms", if
developed in sufficient numbers, must significantly reduce emissions, must
close a nuclear power station or must measurably slow the depletion of
other fuels which will soon be exhausted.
Wind Power vs. Nuclear Power
The nuclear question is straightforward, at least in relation to wind.
John Redwood, when as Welsh Secretary he gave evidence to the Welsh
Affairs Select Committee on Wind Energy, was asked specifically if the
development of wind technology would close a nuclear power station. He
confirmed that existing nuclear power stations would continue to the end
of their working lives regardless of wind "farms". The present government
has not changed this position. Indeed, wind power can never close a power
station of any sort, because when the wind does not blow wind turbines
produce no electricity and need a back up from a power station matching
their capacity if there is not to be a power cut.
Far from reducing our dependence on nuclear, the percentage of
electricity provided by nuclear power stations has grown during the last
decade when wind turbines have been constructed in large numbers. In 1990
there were no wind "farms" and 20% of our electricity came from nuclear;
in 1997 we had more than 700 turbines and 30% of our electricity came from
nuclear. There is no possibility of wind and other renewables making up a
30% shortfall in our generation of electricity. A European Commission
report published in April 2000 indicated that over the next 20 years at
least 85 new nuclear power stations will have to be built in Europe,
including four in the UK, if targets on emissions of CO2 are to be met,
since nuclear generation produces no emissions and current nuclear plant
is ageing. The report advises that existing nuclear plant should operate
for forty years, despite having an envisaged working life of only 25 - 30
years. When the current nuclear power stations close, they will be
replaced either by gas stations (CCGTs) or by modern nuclear plants. That
will be a thorny political debate, but it will be one in which the wind
industry plays no part since, as the report concludes, renewables will not
be able to meet the shortfall.
Since Chernobyl no one has been able to ignore nuclear risks and recent
problems at Sellafield have underlined them. It is dishonest of the wind
industry to use these risks to frighten people into accepting wind
turbines in unsuitable locations, since turbines can form no part of the
solution. It is important to remember the words of Ian Mays, when he was,
as chairman of the British Wind Energy Association, giving evidence to the
House of Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee on Wind Energy: "The
future can only be renewables and nuclear in some sort of combination"
(30.03.1994). And let us not forget what Dr David Lindley of National Wind
Power said in evidence to the House of Lords on 18th February 1988: "We
all work for companies which are involved in some way in the construction
of nuclear power stations, so we are hardly anti-nuclear."
Fossil Fuel Depletion
Fossil fuels are certainly finite resources. The question is whether
they are in such short supply as to cause us concern. A Club of Rome
report in 1972 predicted they would run out by 1990.
The Director General of the UK Petroleum Industry wrote to The
Times in late 1999: "Current known reserves-to-production ratios range
from about 50 years for oil and gas to over 200 years for coal." He
suggested, too, that undiscovered fields of oil and gas, tar shales and
oil sands will extend the availability, albeit with higher extraction
costs.
Reserves of coal will probably never be exhausted, because: "coal
became obsolete, with huge and useless British and world reserves" ( - Dr
A McFarquar of Cambridge University to The Times in 1999). These
stocks, however, along with uranium reserves, will assure continuity of
electricity supply.
The authoritative House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee
reported (Energy Policy -June 1998): "We see no grounds for major
concern over the very diverse countries of origin of supplies of gas, nor
the prospects of prices being driven unnaturally high by cartel ... There
are no reasons either on grounds of security of supply or of confidence in
long term availability to resist the growing use of gas."
Don Huberts who heads Shell Hydrogen, a division of Royal Dutch Shell
is convinced that new energy sources will soon begin to replace fossil
fuels. He wrote in The Economist: "The stone age did not end
because the world ran out of stones and the oil age will not end because
the world runs out of oil."
Apart from conventional gas reserves, hydrates (compressed methane)
found in immense quantities on the ocean floor are alone sufficient to
power the world for another millennium. The problem at the moment is how
to recover them without releasing the gas once the pressure is off, but a
Japanese company is currently planning to drill down to a known deposit 40
miles off Japan's Pacific coast.
The conclusion we must draw is that there is at least no rush to
plaster our landscape with huge turbines. An unpredictable and
intermittent energy source like wind can never supply more than about 10%
of our electricity without causing major disruption to the system as it
cuts in and out. If in fifty years it is clear that even this marginal
quantity of electricity is vital, then at least wind turbines have the
virtue that they can be erected very quickly.
CO2 Emissions and Global Warming
The burning of fossil fuels is a major source of CO2 emissions, which
have risen dramatically over the last twenty five years and been linked by
many scientists to global warming. Estimates vary about how much the world
will warm over the next century, about what the effects will be and about
the extent to which human activity rather than natural cyclical effects
are the cause of climate change. According to The New Scientist
there is broad agreement that the global average temperature will rise
by 1.5 degrees by 2100. It is a welcome phenomenon that governments are
beginning to look at the issue and to form policies that head off
potential dangers.
There is a risk, however, that governments will avoid the more
difficult political decisions. If we accept that global warming is a major
threat to humankind, why did the UK government impose a moratorium on the
move to relatively clean gas-fired power stations and recently offer a
large cash subsidy to the coal industry? Why has it avoided measures to
deal with traffic growth (emissions from cars are our fastest growing
source of CO2 and air travel is becoming a serious contributor)? Why is
insulation material subject to VAT at 17.5% while energy consumption (our
gas and electricity bills) is subject to VAT at only 5%. And while nuclear
power is highly unpopular and carries obvious risks, it generates 30% of
our electricity and produces virtually no CO2 - so why do we hear so
little discussion of what is to replace our current nuclear power stations
as they reach the end of their working life within the next ten to twenty
years?
A government fearful of taking the politically difficult decisions on
energy may be tempted to hide behind some green window-dressing, and this
in our view is what the encouragement of wind "farms" has been since the
early 1990s. According to the government's consultation paper New and
Renewable Energy - prospects for the 21st Century (March 1999) it is
"working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10% of UK
electricity supplies ... by 2010." This "could lead to a reduction of 5
million tonnes in UK carbon emissions." Since UK Carbon emissions are
projected to total 168 million tonnes of carbon by then, the renewables
programme could lead to a reduction of just under 3%. Not all the
renewable energy is to come from wind. Other sources are hydro, energy
crops, waste incineration and other biomass. The projection is that wind
will contribute between 2.1% and 4.4% of UK electricity supplies,
according to the constraints put on the development of wind "farms". Thus,
using the government's figures, wind farms could lead to a reduction of
between 1.05 and 2.2 million tonnes of carbon per year - between 0.6% and
1.3% of UK emissions - between 0.004% and 0.009% of global CO2 emissions.
Clearly that will have no effect whatsoever on global warming or climate
change.
Wind Turbines and Carbon Dioxide - a case study.
A large turbine in Gloucestershire saves less than the amount of CO2
produced by just one articulated lorry.
At Nympsfield in Gloucestershire a single 500 kW gearless Enercon
turbine was commissioned in Dec. 1996. Its annual output is about 1.11
million kWh (Tilting at Windmills BBC 2, 2.2.99). Since the turbine
generates not only during the day, when it might displace oil- or
coal-fired generation, but also at night when mainly nuclear and gas
generation are operating, it is logical to assume that it displaces a mix
of fuels, rather than only coal or oil. Department of Trade and Industry
figures indicate that the 1995 generating fuel mix produced an average of
620g. of CO2 per unit of electricity generated. Thus we can calculate that
the Nympsfield turbine saved about 688 tonnes each year, or 0.078 tonnes
per hour.
An articulated lorry travelling at 50 mph along a motorway produces
0.08 tonnes of CO2 per hour. Given the uncontrolled growth of road
traffic, the erecting of turbines is a futile exercise. How many turbines
would we have to build each year to merely to keep pace with traffic
growth?
Return to Home
Page Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
B. THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED
The wind industry argues that 10% of our electricity could be generated
by wind turbines. Even if only a smaller proportion is produced by wind -
say 4.4% as envisaged by the government paper New and Renewable Energy
- there are those who would regard the contribution to the fight
against air pollution (however infinitesimal in global terms) as
worthwhile. Country Guardian argues that the environmental costs of
developing wind energy on this scale hugely outweigh the derisory savings
in emissions.
The core of the problem is tiny output of even the biggest wind
"turbine", the prominence of the sites necessary if they are to fulfil
even their very limited generating potential and the huge numbers required
in consequence to generate even modest amounts of electricity.
The machine is more accurately called an airscrew generator. Real
turbines - water, steam or gas - have three characteristics in common:
They are encased, the casing being vital to their operation; they operate
at very high numbers of revolutions per minute; and they produce enormous
amounts of electricity in relation to their size. The wind "turbine" is
set to produce power at low to moderate wind speeds, when the output is a
trickle. As the wind strengthens and real power becomes available, they
have to be shut down or they will blow over.
Official figures for wind turbine output in the UK in 1998 confirm that
their average output is about 25% of their theoretical capacity. A 200 ft
high wind turbine of 500 kW capacity will on average produce 125 kW -
enough to boil 50 electric kettles. The biggest turbines currently
operating have a theoretical capacity of 1.5 MW, which is likely to give
them an average output of under 400 kW
The two biggest wind "farms" in Europe are close to each other in
Powys, at Llandinam and Carno. Between them, they have 159 turbines and
cover thousands of acres. Together they take a year to produce less
than four days' output from a single 2000 MW conventional power station.
Together, they have an output averaging 20 MW (in winter, UK demand peaks
at about 53,000 MW.
The number of turbines needed to produce a given amount of power
depends on the size of the turbine and the wind speed of its site, so
estimates vary.
UK annual electricity consumption is about 300,000 million units (300
TWh). 10% of consumption is 30 TWh and 4.4% is 13.2 TWh.
In 1997, 550 wind turbines in Britain produced 505 million units.
Extrapolating from that, we would need 14,400 turbines to produce 4.4% of
our electricity and 32,700 to produce 10%. Allowing that the turbines now
being produced have significantly higher outputs, the required units might
be produced by 10,000 or 22,700 machines.
Wind Power Monthly reported in January 2000 that the installed
capacity of turbines on a world-wide basis at the end of 1999 was 12,455
MW. That represents the theoretical maximum output of nearly 40,000
turbines, erected over 30 years! If we remember that the average
output of a wind turbine is only 25% of its capacity, all the world's wind
machines are on average producing 3,100 MW or 27 TWh per year: just 9% of
the consumption of one very small country like the UK and less than the
output of a single British power station like Drax. When it is remembered
that this derisory achievement was only possible with governments around
the world encouraging the construction of turbines with subsidies or tax
credits, it can clearly be seen that at best wind energy is an irrelevant
side-show, while at worst it may deceive consumers into believing that
something worthwhile is being done to combat emissions.
Return to Home
Page Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
C. THE PROBLEM OF INTERMITTENCY
Wind is an intermittent source of power and the only form of energy
generation which we cannot control. If there is no wind, there is no
generation; if there is too much wind the turbines must be shut down or
they will be blown over. At the moment UK turbines generate only an
insignificant trickle - less than 100 MW on average from nearly 50 wind
"farms", towards an average demand of about 43,000 MW, so that their
intermittent supply causes no problems for consumers - indeed those who
manage supply simply ignore their existence.
If ever the wind industry gets its way, however, and builds the 22,700
turbines necessary to produce 10% of our supply, there would be major
implications. For example, on January 7th 1997 demand in the UK peaked at
53,000 MW. The British Isles were covered by an area of high pressure and
there was no wind. Had we been relying on wind to provide 5,300 MW at that
point, there would have been widespread power cuts and 10% of the
population would have been without electricity on a cold winter
evening.
Of course, that kind of disaster would never be permitted in a modern
industrial state, and so enough fossil fuel generating capacity would
always be kept on stand-by ("spinning reserve") to supply the shortfall if
the wind dropped: any emissions savings will thus be reduced and of course
no power station could ever close because of the major development of wind
energy. Wind "farms" constitute an increase in energy supply, not a
replacement - an extra environmental cost to add to that of nuclear and
fossil fuel.
Return to Home
Page Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
D. LANDSCAPE QUALITY OF WIND "FARM" SITES
Guy Roots, counsel for the wind farm developers at the Public
Enquiry into the Kirkby Moor wind "farm" in the Furness Peninsula of the
South Lake District, said: "It tends to be the higher parts of the country
which are technically suitable for wind farms. These are too often
prominent, scenically beautiful sites, and that causes a dilemma."
The map of Designated Areas - National Parks, Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest etc. - overlaps
almost exactly the map of high wind speed sites. Although the
authoritative report by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee on Wind Energy
advised that wind "farms" should be sited neither within Designated Areas
nor where they would be clearly visible from such areas there is in
practice no restraint over where developers may seek to erect wind
turbines. They tend to target areas with the highest wind speed because
these will guarantee the greatest output and the highest return. In
addition, the system of subsidy which operated throughout the 1990s, the
Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), invited competitive tenders from
developers on the basis of cost per unit of electricity generated, with no
reference to environmental acceptability, so that the system itself tended
to produce applications in sites which were environmentally damaging.
The result is that wind developments have threatened much of our very
finest landscape: at Corston and Cilciffeth, both on the borders of the
Pembrokeshire National Park; on the Black Hill, Herefordshire (SSSI, Area
of Great Landscape Value, 200 metres from Brecon Beacons National Park);
the Denbigh Moors (SSSI, less than 2 miles from Snowdonia National Park);
Ingham Farms, less than 1 mile from the Norfolk Broads National Park, and
many others. If these landscapes, which are some of the finest in Europe,
are threatened, how much more so are undesignated landscapes like the
notably beautiful Radnorshire hills, whose lack of designation is a
puzzling anomaly, or those isolated hills in otherwise degraded landscapes
which are treasured for their amenity value by those who live near
them.
That no area can be considered so beautiful as to be sacrosanct is
proved by a current proposal to build 50 turbines near the village of
Rookhope in the Wear Valley, entirely within the North Pennines Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. The turbines are each 300 feet high, almost as
tall as St Paul's Cathedral, and will be visible from twenty miles'
distance. The proposal conflicts with the Local Plan, the Structure Plan
and even the government's guidelines for wind development, but the
developers, National Wind Power, appear determined to proceed despite
massive opposition. Incredibly, even the parent company, National Power,
rejected the site seven years ago on the grounds that the AONB status of
the landscape made it too sensitive for wind turbines, while the important
peat soil structure would be profoundly damaged by construction work.
If between ten thousand and twenty-two thousand of these huge machines
are to be built in such locations as those which have been proposed to
date there will be hardly any part of our most valued landscape which is
not blighted. Apart from the turbines themselves, many miles of
transmission lines and hundreds of pylons would have to constructed
because the sites are remote from the grid.
It is no wonder that in 1996 the Countryside Commission, which was then
the government's landscape watchdog, warned that England's scenic
countryside is in danger of becoming a "windfarm wilderness." It noted
that nearly 150 turbines were being sited in or adjacent to Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and that a further nine wind "farms" were
targeted on Heritage Coasts, Areas of Great landscape Value and the
immediate vicinity of National Parks. The Commission's brief was only to
deal with England. The UK picture as a whole is even bleaker.
Recently, the wind industry has responded to concerns such as these by
proposing that half the turbines proposed for the UK could be sited
offshore. This question is dealt with in section F.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
E. BEAUTIES OR BEASTS?
Aesthetic judgements are subjective and there may be as many who find a
wind turbine beautiful as there are who find it ugly. That is not the
issue: a wind "farm" is an industrial site of vast proportions and a
turbine is a huge and noisy machine - 300 feet high or even more, the
height of a 30 storey office block. A 30 storey building by a leading
architect might be very beautiful, but on planning grounds would be
unacceptable in a small village or on top of the fells in the Lake
District.
Supporters of the technology as committed as Friends of the Earth argue
that they should be excluded from Designated Areas like national Parks,
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites Of Special Scientific
Interest. Jonathan Porritt, another supporter, wrote in The Daily
Telegraph: "The modern wind turbine is a mighty intrusive beast. It's
not into nestling, blending in or any of those clichés so beloved of rural
romantics."
Wind Power Monthly, the magazine for the wind industry and wind
enthusiasts, has recognised that the reason for the growing unpopularity
of wind power is that a heavy industry has tricked its way into unspoiled
countryside in "green" disguise. The editor wrote (September 1998): "Too
often the public has felt duped into envisioning fairy tale wind "parks"
in the countryside. The reality has been an abrupt awakening. Wind power
stations are no parks." She went on to point out that in Denmark turbines
are treated within the planning process in the same way as motorways,
industrial buildings, railways and pig farms!
Return to Home
Page Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
F. WIND TURBINES OFFSHORE?
In its scenarios for renewable energy by the year 2010 in New and
Renewable Energy - Prospects for the 21st Century the Department of
Trade and Industry suggests that between 60 and 70% of wind-generated
electricity could come from turbines sited offshore. Much larger turbines
are envisaged at sea than on land - Enercon are developing a turbine with
an installed capacity of 5 MW, 190 metres high - and they are likely to
have a greater capacity factor because of more dependable wind speeds. We
speculate that to meet the offshore wind target envisaged in New and
Renewable Energy will require between 3,800 and 4,500 turbines.
From the latest information available (see Section O - Government
Policy) it is not clear where the finance for this ambitious target in a
pioneering field might come from. Nor is there an agreed map of areas for
wind development offshore - this must certainly be a requirement to get
through the maze of planning issues before work in the Crown Agents' seas
can start.
The whole sea is not available for wind turbine development. Water
depth has to be less than 40 m and the sea bed nearly flat. Shipping
lanes, military zones, pipelines, helicopter flight paths between gas and
oil rigs and the coast, and fishing grounds are expected to be no-go
areas. Uneconomically long distances to grid connections and the absence
of local port facilities would also be constraints.
The Countryside Agency has recommended the DTI to ensure that our
coastline is not damaged by the scale, location or cumulative impact of
turbines, and that special care should be taken with the visual impact of
the lighting of wind stations at sea since they will have to be
illuminated at night. It would like to see mandatory controls of distance
from shore: 3 - 5 km off industrial coasts; 10 - 20 km off National Parks,
AONBs or Heritage coasts; out-of-bounds in largely undeveloped
estuaries.
Unfortunately, developers are likely to be interested in sites within 5
km of coasts, where the water is shallowest, the wind speeds the most
favourable and the cable connections the shortest. The Energy Technology
Support Unit (a DTI agency) has estimated that nearly half of off-shore
turbines will be within 10 km (6.25 miles) of the coast, with fewer than
18% beyond the 20 km line. Three British off-shore projects are in
preparation: Blyth Harbour, north of Newcastle, 1 km offshore; Scroby
Sands, 3 km off Great Yarmouth; Gunfleet Sands, 5 km off Clacton-on-Sea.
The Crown Estate has granted permits for wind measuring masts in the
Solway Firth, off Rhyl in N Wales, off Swansea,
in the Thames Estuary at Kentish Flats and at Ingoldmells Point north of
Skegness.
How acceptable from an environmental point of view wind turbines at sea
turn out to be will depend on how close to the coast they are sited, how
scrupulously the developers avoid coasts of special beauty and how
carefully cable landing sites and pylons to carry cable to grid
connections are sited. Some people will be glad if pressure on our uplands
is reduced, but others will be dismayed by the industrial intrusion into
the majesty of the seascape. Electricity from turbines at sea will
certainly be more expensive and not much less unpredictable than that from
land-based machines.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
G. THE NOISE FACTOR
The noise from a wind turbine comes from both the mechanical gearing
and from the aerodynamic properties of the rotating blades. The former can
to a degree be controlled and insulated and some makes of turbine are
quieter than others.
The more intrusive noise comes from the effects of the blade moving
through the air and the industry has had virtually no success in
controlling this. Indeed, it has probably not tried seriously to do so.
The web site of the VESTAS turbine manufacturer is revealing: "The new
design allows the blades to cut so aggressively through the wind that the
kilowatt counter runs as much as 17 - 19% faster than even its highly
competitive predecessor. Development work on this turbine has focused
on one factor: profitability." [Country Guardian's italics - and it
should be noted that these are the latest machines, a fact which
undermines the industry's claim that only the early machines created
significant noise levels. Theses turbines were erected at Ireleth in
Cumbria and in 1999 The Westmorland Gazette reported: "Barrow's
chief environmental health officer said the council was taking action
against the noise nuisance."]
.
The larger the turbine, the greater the air mass moving the blades and
the higher the noise level. The noise is a penetrating, low-frequency
'thump' each time a blade passes the turbine tower - reminiscent of the
reverberating bass notes of a discotheque at a neighbour's noisy party,
which can be heard and felt even when the rest of the music cannot be
distinguished, or of a helicopter in the distance.
That noise from wind turbines is one of the major environmental costs
of the technology is suggested by the fact that 10% of PPG 22 (the
government's Planning Policy Guidance note dealing with renewable energy)
is devoted to the issue and by the fact that the Department of Trade and
Industry spends more of its budget researching noise from wind turbines
than on all other environmental noise problems. The Welsh Affairs Select
Committee recognised the magnitude of the problem in its report on wind
energy. "For existing windfarms we are satisfied that there are cases of
individuals being subject to near-continuous noise during the operation of
the turbines, at levels which do not constitute a statutory nuisance or
exceed planning conditions, but which are clearly disturbing and
unpleasant and may have some psychological effects."
The genuine difficulty that developers face is that noise levels cannot
be predicted in advance. The Energy Technology Support Unit has reported
(Assessment and Prediction of Wind Turbine Noise -1993): "At
present there is no established method for the prediction of wind turbine
noise and basic understanding of wind turbine noise is low. Not enough is
known of the basic mechanisms which control the noise radiation process to
allow the development of detailed prediction methods."
Despite the weight of evidence the wind industry has a history of
dismissing the noise problem, particularly when it is "consulting" the
population of an area targeted for a wind development or presenting
information in support of an application or fighting an appeal.
Windcluster, the developing company for the wind turbines sited in South
Cumbria between the villages of Askam, Marton and Ireleth wrote a letter
to householders about their plans in advance of the application. It reads
in part: "The design and control systems will ensure that there will be no
noise nuisance." (March 1995). By 1999, the local paper The Westmorland
Gazette was reporting about this windfarm: "Environmental Health
officers agree turbines contravene noise nuisance laws."
The developers at the Llandinam wind "farm", constructed in 1992, have
been unable to solve the noise problem and complaints continue. At least
one householder has succeeded in having his Council Tax reduced on the
basis that the noise from the turbines has sufficiently reduced the value
of his property for it to be placed in a lower band. The chairman of the
firm which built the wind "farm", Tim Kirby of Ecogen, was quoted in
The Guardian (11.03.94) as saying: "Our acoustic consultants got it
wrong. Their calculations didn't apply to this sort of terrain." His firm
had previously issued a statement which read: "It is important that we at
Ecogen apologise formally for giving the local people the impression that
the windfarm will be [sic] inaudible. The blunt truth is that we were
wrong and we recognise now that no operating windfarm can be considered to
be inaudible." (22.02.93).
Those living close to wind "farms" find the noise levels completely
unacceptable and are enraged that assurances about noise given in advance
turn out to be worthless. One unhappy neighbour wrote about his
experiences to The Daily Telegraph (21.10.93). "The impact of wind
farms on landscape may be significant, but noise is more relevant to those
of us living next to this new industry. My home nestles on the
north-western slope of Mynach Bach, Ceredigion, below the 20 turbine
windfarm owned by National Windpower. We live 350 metres from the nearest
turbine and about 750 metres from six or seven others. The "thwump" of the
blades and the grinding gears is driving us to distraction. My kitchen
chimney amplifies these noises sickeningly. Since commissioning in July
the house has frequently vibrated with sickening soundwaves. At night,
these disrupt sleep even when all the windows are closed ... For my family
and those in a similar plight ... there is a distressing human cost for
this supposedly 'environmentally friendly' electricity. For us, this is no
brave, new, clean energy but a rapacious industrial giant." (letter from
C. Kerkham)
The residents of Marton, Ireleth and Askam formed their own action
group after the construction of turbines near their villages, to seek
redress. It is worth visiting their web site for a first hand account of
the horrors of living near a wind "farm." On the subject of noise they
write: "Standing 1000 metres downwind of the turbines is enough for most
people to realise that they would not like to live within this distance of
a turbine. The sound is invasive enough to penetrate the walls and double
glazing of a house of modern construction and still be clearly audible
inside. In our area there are houses that are a lot closer than this to
the turbines, a few hundred metres in some cases. For these properties the
wind direction is immaterial and the noise is constant and during summer
nights it was not possible for the occupants to sleep with the window open
due to the noise... Those of us who are unfortunate enough to be closest
to the turbines are experiencing a barrage of background noise pollution
that is actually making some of those worst affected physically ill."
Noise is recognised as a significant cause of stress and stress-related
illness in modern society. It is worth recalling that the Americans
considered using low-frequency noise as a battlefield weapon in the 1950s!
Certainly, health problems have been reported by those living near wind
"farms" at Llandinam, Llangwyryfon and Ireleth.
While the visibility of wind turbines may reduce the value of a
property, their noise will render it unsaleable.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
H. TELEVISION INTERFERENCE
That wind turbines can disrupt TV reception was noted in 1994 when the
BBC and the Independent Television Commission recommended the Department
of the Environment to compel wind farm developers to restore reception
where wind "farms" caused interference. In the same year The New
Scientist accused the government of ignoring the recommendation and
leaving viewers at the mercy of developers.
The Cambrian News reported (23.1.97) that the residents of the
Rheidol Valley in Mid Wales experienced such bad TV interference that
their televisions were impossible to view from the moment the turbines of
the Cwm Rheidol wind "farm" were built.
Effectively turbines cause a reception shadow of up to 10 km when they
stand between a TV transmitter and dwellings with TV aerials., pointing
through the wind turbines towards the transmitter. Viewers in such
locations will have their signal scattered, causing loss of detail, loss
of colour or buzz on sound.
In addition, viewers situated to the side of turbines may experience
periodic reflections from the blades, giving rise to "ghosting" and
flicker as the blades rotate.
Significant interference is unlikely more than 10 km "downstream" of
the turbines or beyond 500 m elsewhere around the wind "farm". It should
be noted, however, that a New Scientist report in 1994 said that
there were 50 main TV transmitters serving a series of relay stations
which cover the country. A wind turbine disrupting signals in any location
could cause interference all down the chain.
Developers can sort out most of the problems if they are prepared to
spend enough money. Millhouse Green wind "farm" on Royd Moor in the
Barnsley area, started to cause TV reception problems as soon as its first
turbines were erected in 1994. For more than two years locals suffered
first a total loss of reception and then poor reception as adjustments to
aerials and retuning took place. Finally, a new relay station was built.
Fortunately for locals, a council member had raised the risk of TV
interference at the point when the developers, Yorkshire Water, were
seeking planning permission. At first they denied that there would be a
problem, but a clause was written into the planning agreement whereby they
had to finance remedial work if it proved necessary.
Such an agreement is vital since possible solutions have problems and
drawbacks involved: a new relay station will only help if there are enough
frequencies available (digital carriers and Channel 5 have taken up many);
retuning to another transmitter may mean loss of local news and
programmes. Victims of this problem have found that the cheapest, rather
than the most effective, options are tried first and that time and energy
are needed to achieve a solution.
Turbines also disrupt microwave communications links and for this
reason the Swedish armed forces blocked 15 wind "farms" in Norrtalje and
have argued against wind developments on the coast between Stockholm and
Uppland.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
I. WIDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Wind" farms" are such a recent phenomenon that it is hard to be certain
of their long-term ecological impact. However, the Flaight Hill Opposition
Group at Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire, commissioned an hydrologist and a
number of engineers to examine the neighbouring Ovenden Moor wind "farm".
They found that the erection of turbines 200 feet high had cracked the
bedrock of this upland moorland and diverted natural watercourses. Around
the turbines and along the cable trenches the thin layers of peat were
drying out rapidly and it is likely that these sections of peat bog will
simply blow away. Moreover, tracks to and between turbines have acted as
dams and formed deep pools of peat "soup" - fetid surface water which
cannot run or drain away. There is certain to be a knock-on effect on
flora, insects and birds which depended on the ecological status quo
before the turbines were built.
The hole excavated for a turbine's foundation has a volume equivalent
to a 25m swimming bath. The extracted material has to be put somewhere
else. The hole is filled with sand, aggregate and cement which has to come
from somewhere else and has to be transported by heavy lorries. Several
miles of service roads and cable trenches need to be constructed at a
large wind "farm" site. If the site is at any distance from the grid,
there will be pylons and overhead transmission lines to form the necessary
connection. Wind enthusiasts admit that they need huge quantities of
concrete for foundations and roads and are on record as claiming that many
jobs are created or safe-guarded thereby. Yet the concrete industry is the
biggest man-made source of CO2 on the planet - about 7% of the world's
total. Wind turbines produce significant amounts of CO2 - they merely do
it in advance. If the emissions created during manufacture and erection
are averaged over the units of electricity generated during the lifetime
of a turbine, the CO2 cost is 50g per unit (Algemeen Dagblad -
Netherlands - 8.2.2000). What was once inaccessible upland becomes
accessible for more intensive agriculture. Applications for further
development can use the argument that the landscape is already degraded by
wind turbines: this has happened in an application for a landfill site at
Llanidloes in Powys, where the Llandinam turbines have been cited in the
landscape assessment.
Dr John Hedger at the Institute of Biological Sciences at the
University of Wales, Aberystwyth, has written: "Wind energy is not as
clean as its proponents would have us believe. It is an industrial
development and as such causes degradation of the environments where
turbines are sited. The result is a loss of habitat for wildlife. The
proposed environmental benefits of windfarming...will only come from the
very large-scale use of turbines. One environmental problem will simply be
replaced by another."
Paul Gipe, the California-based wind enthusiast, has recently taken the
American wind industry to task for ignoring the serious problem of soil
erosion found at wind "farm" sites.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
J. SAFETY
Blades weigh up to 1.5 tonnes and their tips are travelling at more
than 180 mph. When they have broken off they have planed up to 400 metres.
On 9 Dec. 1993 parts of a blade were thrown 400 m at Cemmaes in Wales. At
Tarifa, Spain, blades broke off on two occasions in Nov. 1995 - the first
in gusty, high winds, the second in only light wind (report, Windpower
Monthly, Dec. 1995).
In an article written in January 1996 Professor Otfried Wolfrum,
professor of applied geodesy at Darmstadt University, wrote of a
significant number of blade failures in Germany, detailing four
particularly severe ones where fragments of blade weighing up to half a
tonne were thrown up to 280 m. "From the experience in Germany, where
presently of all European countries the greatest number of turbines is
installed, it appears that this technology is by no means
safe...particularly with the large new models, with rated capacities of
500 kW and more, problems arise since the rotor blades are heavier and
have to be manufactured manually."
The civic authorities in Palm Springs, USA, as early as the late 1980s
made developers move turbines to a distance of half a mile from the
highway for safety reasons.
Apart from the danger of blades becoming detached or disintegrating,
there is a risk that lumps of ice can form on them in still cold weather
and then be thrown significant distances when the wind gets up and the
blades begin to move. This danger is specifically recognised in the
government's planning guidance document PPG 22. "In those areas where
icing of blades does occur, fragments of ice might be released from the
blades when the machine is started." Professor Wolfrum wrote on this
subject: "Some ice layers 150mm thick have been detected and their mass
has been as high as 20 - 23 kg/m (proceedings BORKAS 11Helsinki 1994,
p219)" He demonstrated that these fragments could travel up to 550 m and
land with impact speeds of 170 mph. It is hardly surprising that during
the winter, the management company erects "Falling Ice" warning notices at
the Ovenden Moor wind "farm" in Yorkshire.
In April 2000, three UK wind "farms" were closed for safety reasons,
apparently because of metal fatigue in the turbine towers. The sites in
question are at Cold Northcott in Cornwall and Cemmaes and Llangwyryfon in
Wales.
The Countryside Agency has called for turbines to be sited away from
bridleways - a distance of three times the height of the turbines normally
and four times the height of the turbines near National Trails (height to
blade tip) - because noise and flicker can startle horses and endanger
their riders and because of risk from thrown ice. The British Horse
Society has expressed similar concerns.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
K. TOURISM, JOBS, HOUSE PRICES
The main adverse impact that wind "farm" development is likely to have
on the economy of an area relates to tourism. We have already shown that
in the UK the best wind speed sites are in the areas with the finest
landscapes. Wind developers are therefore targeting those areas where the
tourist trade consists of those seeking peace, quiet and unspoiled
countryside. A National Tourist Board survey shows that 90% of British
holiday makers who go to the countryside do so to enjoy it for its own
sake and seek no further attractions like theme parks.
A survey by the University of Leiden in Holland in the late 1980s found
that the majority of those questioned felt that a landscape lost its
interest as turbines accumulated in it.
Although the first wind "farms" in Cornwall attracted tourist visits
from those already in the area for other purposes, the attraction was one
of novelty and visitor numbers have dropped with each succeeding year.
Clearly, if developers succeed in erecting thousands of turbines, novelty
value will be lost and those seeking rural peace will head for areas not
degraded by turbines - for example National parks, where visitor numbers
already cause a problem. There is anecdotal evidence (letters to the press
from locals) that visitor numbers have fallen by 40% in areas of Denmark
developed for wind energy. The North Devon Tourist Development Manager
opposed two local wind "farm" projects fearing the effects "on existing
tourism operators." The Welsh Tourist Board's policy on wind turbines
reads: "The Board endorses the policies of the Countryside Council for
Wales which oppose the introduction of commercial wind turbines and wind
turbine power stations in primary designated areas (i.e. National Parks,
AONBs, Heritage Coasts and Marine, National and International Nature
Reserves). We consider that elsewhere proposals should be considered on
their merits, the effects upon tourism being a material issue for
consideration." Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council rejected a wind
"farm" at Carlesgill partly because of its likely effect on tourism
(rejection later overturned on appeal).
If wind "farms" threaten to destroy jobs in the tourist industry, they
create few if any compensating jobs elsewhere. A typical wind "farm" would
employ a single maintenance operative. The largest wind "farm" in Europe
has three full-time employees. At the Bryn Titli wind "farm" in Wales even
the construction site workers were Danish - erecting Danish turbines.
Every turbine to be used in the projects currently on the drawing board is
of foreign manufacture. Dazzling creative accounting is used by the wind
industry to arrive at employment figures "relating to" wind, but the
simple truth is that if the subsidies going into renewables were diverted
to energy conservation, thousands of jobs would be created at a stroke,
and far more emissions would be saved. Connah's Quay gas-fired power
station created or secured 8,000 jobs, and all of the 500 contractors and
consultants were based in the UK.
The only benefit to an area is the site rent (£1,000 - £2000 per annum
per turbine) paid to a handful of landowners. The benefit could easily be
outweighed by a decline in tourist numbers. It should be noted that with
holiday cottages and caravan sites, tourism has become an important
element of farm diversification. What one farmer gains another may lose.
This is one of the reasons that communities have found themselves torn
apart by the wind issue.
In terms of the impact on house values there can be no doubt. A partner
in Durrants, the Mayfair and East Anglia chartered surveying firm, wrote
(May 1998): "I can confirm that the outlook from a property does have a
major bearing on its value and if this outlook is tarnished by a wind
turbine or any similar structure, the values would be significantly
decreased." International property consultants FPD Savills wrote in May
1998: "Any structure that can be viewed as an intrusion into the
countryside such as electricity pylons or wind turbines will have a
detrimental effect [on property values]. Usually, it will not only effect
the value but also saleability which is not necessarily the same thing.
Generally speaking, the higher the value of the property the greater the
blight will be ... As you go up the value scale, buyers generally become
more discerning and the value of a farmhouse may be affected by as much as
30% if it is in close proximity to the wind turbine. Those houses that are
within earshot are likely to be affected worst of all."
A chartered surveyor from Cumbria, Mr R.D. Wolstenholme, has written to
Open View of his experience: "I am a chartered surveyor and
recently sold my house at Lambrigg. I found that the proposed windfarm
there (with all the implications for the additional ones adjoining) had a
devastating effect on the value of my property. Three local agents all
valued it at about £295,000 and during the first few weeks on the market
we had three offers at around £280,000. Each accepted offer fell through
as soon as it became apparent that the proposals at Lambrigg, Firbank and
Whinfell would all overlook the property. After being on the market for
six months, and no less than nine failed sales, we eventually succeeded in
selling to someone who wasn't bothered about them, but at a knock-down
price of £250,000."
In Denmark, the National Association of Neighbours of Wind Turbines say
that most estate agents estimate a 25 - 30 % fall in property value when
turbines are put up nearby.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
L. THE EFFECT ON BIRDS
Planning Policy Guidance 22 (PPG 22) which deals with planning
considerations relating to the development of renewables states: "Evidence
suggests that the risk of collision with moving turbine blades is minimal
both for migrating birds and for local habitats." The simple fact is,
however, that turbine blades have killed birds in large numbers, which is
not surprising when it is remembered that turbine blades weigh up to 1.5
tonnes and their tips are travelling at 180 mph.
At Tarifa in Spain significant numbers of birds of 13 species protected
under European Union law have been killed by turbines (Windpower
monthly 2.2.94).
The wind turbines in Altamont Pass in California have on average killed
200-300 Redtail Hawks and 40-60 Golden Eagles each year, while it is
estimated that 7000 migrating birds a year are killed at other wind
turbine sites in Southern California.(California Energy
Commission).
The Times reported in May 1999 that Scottish Power was to invest
two million pounds creating a new grouse moor away from a proposed wind
"farm" to encourage a pair of Golden Eagles to hunt where they would not
be at risk from turbine blades.
At Largie, Kintyre, Scotland, the inspectors at the Scottish Office
overturned a planning consent for wind turbines at an Inquiry in November
1998 because of danger to the population of White-Fronted Geese.
In December 1999 English Nature objected to the erection of wind
turbines near the Ouse Washes and the Nene Washes in East Anglia because
of a number of potential hazards for wildfowl, including habitat loss and
degradation, indirect disturbance from noise, potential for mortality due
to collision with wind turbines, effect on nocturnal patterns of movement
and danger to birds during periods of poor visibility and severe
weather.
English Nature in making the above objection cited studies by Winkelman
and Karlsson which respectively recorded 0.54 collisions per turbine per
day during the heaviest period of diurnal migration at Oosterbierum in the
Netherlands, and 49 dead birds at one turbine during one night of
migration at Nasudden in Sweden.
Two European Union directives, the Habitats Directive and the Birds
Directive, apply to proposed developments which are likely to have a
significant effect on designated habitat and breeding sites. These
directives have been transposed into UK law by Regulations 48, 49 and 54
of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. They would
appear to constrain wind "farm" development around such sites. In Holland,
49 new bird sanctuaries have been designated in February 2000 and these
are proving a major impediment to plans for turbines.
Return to Home
Page Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
M. PUBLIC OPINION
The wind industry constantly claims that surveys demonstrate that 70%
of the population are in favour of the technology. The surveys they refer
to, however, are of a general nature: they do not ask whether a wind farm
on a specific site would be a good idea and it is obviously possible to
support the idea of wind energy in principle while rejecting it as an
option in a particularly fine landscape or on an Site of Special
Scientific Interest. The industry uses general approval to support its
plans to industrialise even the most sensitive locations.
Where surveys have been site-specific the results are very different.
For example, a referendum of the residents of Brora and Helmsdale in
Sutherland was undertaken in the summer of 1996 by the Electoral Reform
Society. To the question: 'Do you want wind turbine towers to be built on
the coastal hills of East Sutherland between Brora and the Ord of
Caithness, now or in the future?' 68% said No (2179 ballot papers
dispatched, 1609 returned, 509 Yes, 1098 No, 2 invalid). Polls in
Montgomeryshire have shown similar results.
Opinion surveys are useful tools for pressure groups but not a sensible
basis for sound planning, since they are often snapshots of ill-informed
opinion. For example one of the motoring organisations conducted a poll in
1994 which found that 84% favoured more road building as an answer to
congestion. Traffic surveys have demonstrated that new road building
increases car use and in the medium to long term leads to equal and then
increased congestion. Similarly, respondents to surveys about wind can be
shown to be ill-informed, believing that wind-generated electricity is
cheap or even free, or that wind "farms" are an alternative to nuclear
power stations.
Informed opinion is very much more critical of wind power development.
Planning committees, advised by professional planning officers who have
objectively to evaluate every aspect of a proposal, have rejected more
than 80% of wind turbine applications, those applications which were
successful generally being for small numbers of turbines. Inspectors at
appeal have usually upheld the planning refusals. The government gave
licences for 2400 MW of wind power under the last three rounds of the
Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and the Scottish Renewables Obligation; by
March 2000, only 200 MW had got through the planning process because well
informed planners and inspectors considered the environmental impacts too
big and the clean energy benefits too small to allow the rest.
A milestone decision has been that relating to Barningham High Moor in
County Durham. The local planning committee on two occasions rejected
National Wind Power's plans for turbines on a site of national
archaeological importance overlooking the Yorkshire Dales National Park
and the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. At appeal, the
government's inspector did in effect a cost/benefit analysis and judged
that "Demonstrable harm would be caused to the appearance of the landscape
and to the enjoyment of users of the National Park ... Conversely, the
amount of energy generated would be small and the pollution savings
correspondingly few."
The National Trust, on 19 May 1999, issued a statement denouncing the
"false hopes and flawed solutions" offered by many "green energy" schemes,
particularly wind farms. "In a world where commercial decisions are
dominated by the global market place, wildness is too easily under-valued.
In the present context of concern over climate change and the drive for
clean energy, we are offered a new resource - wind power. We have to be
certain that, if we exploit the wind, loss of the wild is not too high a
price to pay." (A call for the Wild - National Trust, 1999).
The National Trust and the Countryside Commission (now The Countryside
Agency) joined forces to urge the government to recognise that wind
"farms" are industrial and commercial developments and to keep them out of
undegraded landscapes. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales has
demanded an end to further wind development within the Principality. The
Council for the Protection of Rural England has criticised the government
for giving the lion's share of renewables contracts to wind farms in the
4th round of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation because of the visual damage
to landscape which these developments cause. The Ramblers Association, the
Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Association
for the Protection of Rural Scotland and the Council for National Parks
have all condemned the way in which wind power is being developed.
Former leader of the Labour Party Neil Kinnock wrote in 1994: "My
long-established view is that wind-generated power is an expensive form of
energy. It can only provide a very small fraction of the output required
to meet total energy needs and it unavoidably makes an unacceptable
intrusion into the landscape."
In 1998 the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee reported
(Energy Policy): "...the very different environmental problems that
the development of renewable sources of energy can entail cannot be
overlooked. The environmental impacts of wind power projects have become
increasingly apparent during the 1990s." The committee cited visual and
aural impact and damage to soil structure from the construction
process.
In September 1994 the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons
cast doubts on the economic viability of wind-generated electricity: "We
consider that it is very doubtful that the relatively modest increases in
new electrical generation justify the large sums spent."
In 1998 the Norwegian Government commissioned a report on the
experience of wind energy in Denmark in order to inform its own decisions
on developing the technology. It noted: "serious environmental effects,
insufficient production [and] high production costs."
Perhaps the most authoritative critique of wind-generation of
electricity to date is the Darmstadt Manifesto on the exploitation of wind
energy in Germany. Its authority derives from its signatories - over 100
leading academics in fields including Mathematics, Electrical Engineering,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry, Mechanical Engineering and Thermodynamic
Science, as well as Land Management, Agricultural Science and Geography.
Germany has now more than 7,000 wind turbines and development continues
apace under a government in which the Green Party is a partner. Faced with
this assault on what the authors call "cultural landscapes" and fearing
that young people are "growing up into a world in which natural landscapes
are breaking up into tragic remnants" the manifesto undertakes a
cost/benefit analysis of wind energy. They write that despite the
proliferation of turbines in Germany "less than 1% of the electricity
needed is produced or only slightly more than one-thousandth of the total
energy produced." Equally, "the contribution made by the use of wind
energy to the avoidance of greenhouse gases is somewhere between one and
two thousandths. Wind energy is therefore of no significance whatever
either in the statistics for energy or for those of pollutants and
greenhouse gases." They draw attention to the fact that total energy
consumption in Germany is growing about seventy times faster than the
production of wind energy. "Wind energy is running a race which is already
lost in an economic order orientated towards growth." Not only does
investment in wind (with its low energy yield and high costs) divert
capital pointlessly from much more important environmental protection
measures, but by creating the false perception that a decisive
contribution is being made to a clean environment and a guaranteed supply
of energy, it allows consumers to feel exonerated from the duty of making
energy savings.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
N. WHY THE NEW PHENOMENON OF WINDFARMS?
Not because of the innate soundness or economic sense of the technology
- after all, the air screw generator has been available for more than a
hundred years - but because in 1990 the Conservative government introduced
subsidy for wind "farms" through the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, and, a
few years later, through the Scottish Renewables Order. A Department of
Trade and Industry statement (24.8.94) confirmed that "All wind energy
developments throughout the world are subsidised in one form or another."
Although the guaranteed price per unit of wind-generated electricity
varied from one round of NFFO and SRO to another, wind energy supplied in
the UK over the last ten years has not been cheap, let alone free. It has
cost anything from 116% to 440% of the price of conventionally generated
electricity. Under the new arrangements announced by the government this
year, the effective price for wind energy will be 4.3p per unit as
compared with a base load price of only 2.3p per unit.
A naive customer of SWEB wrote to the company in 1994 asking for a
reduction in his electricity bill since he lived next door to the wind
turbines at Cold Northcott, which generated cheap electricity. The Tariffs
and Supplies manager replied: "Your electricity charges would be
significantly more expensive if they reflected the full cost of supplying
electricity from the wind turbines nearby. These wind turbines are heavily
subsidised by coal-, gas- and oil-fired generation with a levy on
electricity prices which the government introduced and which supports most
generation from renewable sources." (Letter, 28.3.94)
The Electricity Regulator Stephen Littlechild, in his submission to the
government's consultation on renewables, wrote in 1998: "The government is
presently carrying out a review of what would be necessary and practicable
to achieve 10 % of the United Kingdom's electricity needs from renewables
by the year 2010. Such a target might be achieved by continuing NFFO
support for some technologies, including onshore wind, offshore wind and
energy crops. However, the cost of meeting the target in these ways might
amount to some £11 - £15 billion, requiring a levy rate of between 6 and 8
per cent over 15 years. It is for consideration whether the benefits of
renewable energy justify incurring costs on such a scale."
With such huge sums on offer, it is not surprising that developers have
climbed on board. In the main, they are the privatised utilities and other
multi-national companies. The big names in wind energy development have
been Scottish Power, Manweb, SWALEC and National Wind Power, a subsidiary
of National
Power. They are not "green" companies, and their other activities often
add to atmospheric pollution larger amounts of noxious gases than their
wind "farms" save. In April 1995 Scottish Power proposed to double its
coal burn at three of its power stations by 2000. That proposal would lead
to a further 3 million tonnes of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
National Power, owner of National Wind Power, fought hard for consent to
burn orimulsion, one of the dirtiest known fuels, at its Pembrokeshire
power station. Had it succeeded, SO2 emissions would have dwarfed any SO2
savings from UK wind turbines. No doubt these large companies believe that
their wind "farm" activities provide good public relations, but the truth
is that they are in the wind business for profit, not concern for the
environment. In November 1993 Wind Power Monthly, the magazine of
the wind industry and wind enthusiasts, described Britain's wind industry
as being "an industry in search of fast bucks today and never mind
tomorrow." Nothing has changed since then.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
O. GOVERNMENT POLICY
Government policy on wind and other renewable energy sources is set out
in New and Renewable Energy - prospects for the 21st Century
(Conclusions in Response to the Public Consultation.) This followed a
manifesto commitment to a strong drive to develop new and renewable energy
sources.
The government has a ten year strategy to ensure, through a rising
series of targets, that 10% of UK electricity is generated from renewable
sources by 2010. These sources are diverse and include hydro, on- and
off-shore wind, energy crops, waste incineration, landfill gas and other
biomass.
The Utilities Bill, now going through Parliament, provides the
statutory powers for obliging all electricity suppliers in England and
Wales and - separately - Scotland to supply specific proportions of their
electricity each year from renewable sources, based on the quantity of
electricity they supplied the previous year. 2% of UK supply is said
already to come from renewables. The government expects the obligation to
rise to 5% by 2003 and to 10% by 2010, and to apply until 2025. If
suppliers fail to fulfil their obligation to buy the appropriate
proportion of their electricity from renewable generators, they may
instead buy green energy certificates from those with a surplus of
renewable energy or exercise a 'buy-out' option by paying a penalty each
year instead of supplying 'green' electricity. The DTI has indicated that
the penalty will be 2 pence per unit.
The penalty price effectively sets a price cap for renewables at 4.3
pence per unit, since the pool or base load price for electricity is about
2.3 pence per unit. In other words, a supplier failing to meet its
obligation to provide 10% of its electricity from renewables would make up
the shortfall by buying from conventional generators at 2.3p and paying a
further 2p in penalty. If renewables cost more than 4.3 p per unit, it is
cheaper for the supplier to buy conventional electricity and pay the
penalty. Curiously, the revenue from the penalty goes back to the
suppliers, though the money may be repaid to them in proportion to the
amount of green energy they have supplied. This has yet to be decided.
The 4.3p per unit price cap makes significant off-shore wind
development unlikely, since the associated costs of off-shore generation -
construction difficulties, maintenance, cabling, grid connections - will
put the price above that level. The government is said to be considering
supplementary support for off-shore wind.
Another feature of the newly announced policy is that renewables are to
be exempt from a new tax known as the Climate Change Levy (CCL) which is
to come into force in April 2001 adding 0.43 p per unit to the business
use of electricity from fossil or nuclear fuel generation.
Finally, all UK regions will be required to prepare renewable energy
assessments of their resources and set regional renewable energy
production targets (see Windfarms and the Planning System below).
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
P. EUROPEAN UNION POLICY
The European Commission has been trying for some time to implement a
directive on renewable energy. Two proposals had to be abandoned after
opposition from member states, industry and environmental groups. Finally
on 10 May 2000 the Commission announced its proposals.
The draft law aims to double the proportion of 'green' energy from 6%
to 12 % of primary energy supply by increasing the share of renewably
generated electricity from 14% to 22% by 2010. Non-binding "indicative"
national targets will be set to ensure that the EU overall target is met.
Member states will have to report annually on their progress and the
Commission will propose mandatory targets if national goals are
inconsistent with the EU target. For the UK, the Commission's target is
10% by 2010.
Member states will have to "reduce regulatory barriers" which are seen
as hampering renewables development - including establishing a fast track
through planning procedures. What the E U calls "regulatory barriers" were
formerly known as hard-won safeguards for the precious asset of undegraded
landscape - safeguards which, by-and-large, have worked and have defeated
one inappropriate wind "farm" proposal after another.
Doubtless the finalisation of this directive will be delayed as
governments argue about their share of the burden. It must be remembered
too that there are renewables other than wind, though many of them have a
major environmental cost attached just as wind does. Nonetheless, if there
is not to be an unconsidered and unregulated growth in the deployment of
wind turbines thanks to an E U directive, countryside organisations and
individuals must lobby their MEP, the government and their MP.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
Q. KYOTO
At the summit conference in Japan two years ago the industrialised
world agreed to reduce emissions by 5% by 2010, but even that target has
run into problems. By December 1999 only 16 nations had ratified the
protocol. The US, which has 5% of the world's population and produces 20%
of its pollution, shows little sign of co-operating with the target.
Meantime, countries like India and China in their race to industrialise
are massively increasing their coal-burn. Kyoto does not affect the UK
because we will achieve more stringent targets anyway, thanks to our "dash
for gas", but it throws into stark relief the futility of our covering our
wilderness areas with ineffective turbines while major polluters squander
the infinitesimal savings we make.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
R. WIND 'FARMS' AND THE PLANNING SYSTEM
Because wind energy is uneconomic, its development depends on subsidy.
Wind developers have had to jump two hurdles before erecting a wind "farm"
- first to secure a contract from the DTI which provided a guaranteed
market and a premium price for the electricity generated, and secondly to
secure planning consent. The award of a contract gave no preferential
treatment under the planning system.
In clarification, Minister for Planning Richard Caborn wrote in June
1998: "...wind energy developments are subject to exactly the same
planning controls as any other form of development ... The government
wants to encourage the development of clean and renewable energy where
that is economically attractive and environmentally acceptable."
National policy for renewable energy is already part of the planning
process through various government guidance notes to planning authorities:
Planning Policy Guidance Note 22, Renewable Energy; Planning
Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy First Revision April 1999; Planning
Guidance (Wales) Technical Advice Note (Wales) 8 Renewable Energy;
National Planning Policy Guideline 6 Renewable Energy
(Scotland); Planning Advice Note 45 Renewable Energy Technologies.
Planning authorities must have regard to these guidelines in drawing up
their Local Development Plans, to which recent legislation has given
pre-eminence. But the Countryside Act 1968 imposes a responsibility to
preserve the countryside and local government has become increasingly
aware of the tourist and amenity value of undegraded landscape. Thus Local
Development Plans have tended to restrict industrial development to
specific areas, usually those already industrialised. This makes life
difficult for wind developers who seeks sites precluded by the local plan.
They are required to find "substantive material reasons" why restrictions
should be set aside. The only plausible reason might be the reduction in
fossil fuel pollution, but the reduction achieved by even the largest wind
"farms" is so minuscule as to be in no sense substantive.
The early wind "farm" proposals which had won DTI contracts under the
Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation tended to get planning permission without much
difficulty, partly because PPG22 indicated that renewable energy
developments were in the national interest. However, contracts for wind
farms were awarded on the basis of competitive price tender; the better
the wind speed of the site chosen, the cheaper the wind-generated
electricity. The best wind speed sites tend also to be the best
landscapes, so as successive rounds of NFFO pushed the price down,
developers were constrained to choose almost exclusively fine landscapes
for their proposed wind farms. Planning committees became more reluctant
to pass the proposals. The government gave licences for 2400 MW of wind
power under the last three rounds of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and
the Scottish Renewables Obligation; by March 2000, only 200 MW had got
through the planning process because well informed planners and inspectors
considered the environmental impacts too big and the clean energy benefits
too small to allow the rest. The wind industry began to howl in
frustration and demand that wind be given a fast track through the
system.
The government's new policy, announced in February 2000, is to require
all UK regions to prepare renewable energy assessments of their resources
and set regional renewable energy production targets. The government hopes
that this will provide a strategic approach to renewables development to
replace the haphazard scramble for sites which the NFFO system generated.
The assessments and targets should provide a framework for development
plans which will help to determine decisions on individual energy
projects. Whether the assessments and targets turn out to be a constraint
or a facilitating measure for wind developers remains to be seen, but
until the new system is in place we must assume that the current system
prevails. There are still a significant number of NFFO and SRO projects
which have yet to go through the planning process.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
S. THE FUTILITY OF SUPPLY-SIDE SOLUTIONS
We cannot reduce emissions while our consumption of energy grows. The
C02 released during the manufacture of wind turbines and the construction
of a wind "farm" gives an average C02 cost of 50 g per unit generated over
the lifetime of a turbine (cf. 400 g for gas-generated electricity, 7 g
for nuclear). In Germany, with 7,000 turbines, energy consumption is
growing seventy times faster than the production of wind energy as living
standards rise in former East Germany. So, Germany is unlikely to meet its
C02 reduction targets, according to the Institute for Economic Research
DIW (report ENDS Daily 10.2.00). But the German Interministerial
Working Group on Climate Protection reported in April that "Domestic
energy efficiency has the greatest potential to achieve desired reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions." (report ENDS Daily 13.4.00)
America and Europe are profligate in their use of energy. America has
approximately 5% of the world's population and is responsible for about
20% of its energy consumption. In the UK we use 5 times more electricity
than we did 50 years ago, and consumption rises continually - since 1992
by about 10% every four years. To TVs, fridges, cookers and washing
machines we have added as standard freezers, micro-waves, video players,
computers, mobile telephones which need recharging, fax machines,
answering machines, set-top decoder boxes for digital TVs, a range of
power tools for house and garden and more and more. Often these goods are
duplicated - how many households have more than one TV, more than one
mobile phone?
Electricity generation is only one source of greenhouse gas emissions -
and probably accounts for about one-third of them in the UK. Traffic
growth on the roads and in the air are the fastest growing sources of such
emissions. How many families run two or three cars? How many of us fly to
distant destinations on cut-price air tickets? Each year, 110,000,000
million people fly from airports in the South East of England. At Heathrow
there are flight movements every 90 seconds throughout the day
The comforts that the First World takes for granted are, reasonably
enough, coveted by poorer countries and globalisation is leading to a
growth in the economies of formerly poor countries which will allow their
populations to acquire the same goods as the rich and consume energy in
the same profligate way. Between 1990 and 2000 ten of the poorer countries
of Asia and Latin America have doubled their standard of living. Their
populations total 1.5 billion people. It is unthinkable that the countries
of America and Europe should deny energy use to others while continuing to
abuse energy themselves. And it is ludicrous to imagine that the teletubby
technology of the wind turbine is going to supply the needs of the world.
In England growth in electricity use each year is about 12.5 times the
production of all of our wind turbines; we would have to build more than
7,000 turbines a year to keep pace with growth in demand.
What is shocking is how much of our energy use is wasted, how little
attention the government gives to conserving energy and how growth in
consumption is tacitly encouraged. About 30% of our electricity
consumption and about 40% of our energy consumption is in the home and of
this 60% is wasted (Sunday Times, 23 April 2000). Keeping TVs,
stereos and other appliances on stand-by consumes the electricity output
of two average-sized power stations. If each household replaced the
conventional electric bulb most used with a low energy bulb, another power
station could shut and 1.5 million tonnes of C02 could be saved.
The last government calculated (Energy Paper 58, HMSO 1989) that an
immediate, self-financing reduction in energy consumption of 30%
could be achieved by better management or investment in energy saving
measures.
And yet in this key area, shockingly little is done. With privatisation
and de-regulation energy prices have fallen significantly in real terms.
VAT is charged on electricity and gas bills at 5%. On insulation materials
it is charged at 17.5%.
Road traffic is the fastest-growing UK source of CO2 emissions. The
government signally fails to tackle this problem. It has backed away from
road-use pricing. For the first time since 1992, in an effort to appease
motorists who complain about fuel prices rising above the rate of
inflation, it has tied petrol duty increases to inflation. The Chancellor
is introducing instead (March 2001) a graduated road tax, where the most
polluting cars pay more than relatively clean ones, though the measure
will only apply to new cars. A Daihatsu Kuore will be taxed at £100 per
year. A Rolls Royce will be taxed at £180 per year. Since a new Rolls
Royce costs £250,000 few potential owners are likely to be put off by the
tax hike. But a Rolls Royce travelling at 60 mph emits 0.044 tonnes of CO2
in an hour - half the C02 saved in an hour by a 500kW turbine.
We are forced to draw the conclusion that the government does not
regard greenhouse gases and global warming as a very serious problem -
certainly not serious enough to offend voters by making energy use
expensive or taxing personal transport. Instead it puts up turbines which,
statistically, do nothing significant to tackle the problem, but which are
highly visible and, as they will note from the wind industry's opinion
polls, popular with 70% of the voters. The danger is, of course, that the
naive consumer will see the turbines, consider the problem solved and turn
up the thermostat to enjoy his cheap power to the full.
Wind Turbines vs. Energy Saving - a case study
There are 1,628,000 houses in the UK with pitched roof and no roof
insulation*
3780 kWh of energy are lost by each such house each year.*
Insulation to 1990 Building Regulations standard would save 3375 kWh
p.a.*
The annual output of a 750 kW turbine is 1.64 m units.
Insulating 485 houses would save that amount of energy each year.
New funding arrangements will give wind energy a subsidy of 2p per
unit.
The annual subsidy of the turbine will be £32,850.
The cost of insulation is a one-off £122 per house, say £60,000 for 485
houses.
Over the 100 year life of the houses, the energy saving cost averages
£600 pa
Saving pollution by insulation is 55 times more cost-effective than
saving it by wind turbines!
*Source: Pilkington Insulation, UK Mineral Wool Association
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
T. HOW CAN ELECTRICITY NEEDS BE MET?
Even if we reduce our electricity consumption by as much as 50% and
tackle emissions from road and air traffic there will still be a need to
generate electricity, reliably and in large quantities. Wind cannot take a
significant role. The most environmentally-friendly solution at the moment
would seem to be Combined Cycle Gas Turbine generation. The Baglan CCGT
will produce 500 MW of reliable power and cover 15 acres. Carno wind
"farm", said to be the largest in Europe, sprawls over 1500 acres and
produces an average output of 10 MW. Baglan will be the most efficient and
cleanest of its kind in the world.
Power Gen's portfolio of CCGT plant has reduced the company's emissions
by 11,000,000 tons of C02 a year already - one third of the UK's target
for C02 reduction. That is the equivalent of the CO2 savings of 16,000
wind turbines of 500 kW installed capacity. Moreover, it is perfectly
possible to capture 90% of the CO2 created during the gas-fired generation
of electricity and pump it into exhausted natural gas fields. According to
the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad (18.02.00) that would cost an
additional 3 Dutch cents per unit and would make gas generation not only
cheaper than wind generation, but also cleaner, once the CO2 created
during the manufacture and construction of a wind "farm" is taken into
account.
Gas-fired generation raises a further interesting possibility - that of
replacing the national grid of power transmission lines with a grid of gas
pipelines feeding local CCGTs, reducing both transmission loss and the
visual intrusion of pylons.
There are serious questions to be answered: what happens when the
nuclear plants have to close and we lose a virtually CO2-free 30% of our
generation? How is the developing world going to meet its generation
targets? With dirty local coal? With nuclear? Erecting a few thousand wind
turbines in Britain is simply fiddling while the world burns, and, as we
and others have suggested elsewhere, the appearance of these machines
develops the dangerous perception among the badly informed that the
problem is being addressed and that they need do nothing.
Return to Home Page
Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
U. THE VALUE OF LANDSCAPE
Until 1991 and the arrival of wind "farms" in our countryside, few
voices questioned the importance of wild, unindustrialised landscape as a
national asset - proprietors of quarries, developers of open-cast mines
were blinded by a concern for profit, but anyone with a concern for the
environment sought to preserve wilderness areas both from a desire to
protect their fragile eco-systems and from a recognition of their capacity
to enrich human life through spiritual and poetic inspiration and through
self-sufficient adventure.
Since then, however, the issue of the wind turbine has led a section of
the "green" movement to dismiss landscape as a middle-class or NIMBY
concern, because there is no possibility of large numbers of 300 foot high
machines with rotating blades being absorbed into the landscape without
dominating it and giving it an industrialised aspect. Jonathan Porritt's
view is typical: "The modern wind turbine is a mighty intrusive beast.
It's not into nestling, blending in or any of those other clichés beloved
of rural romantics."
The founder of the National Parks movement, John Muir, wrote:
"Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken over-civilised people are beginning to
find that wilderness is a necessity and that mountain parks and
reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating
rivers, but as fountains of life."
If we are to throw away this non-renewable but spiritually renewing
resource it must only be for a benefit of very great significance. 10,000
of the very largest turbines covering our uplands might reduce UK carbon
dioxide emissions by 2-3% and global emissions by 0.05%. Even that tiny
gain would be squandered in a very few years of unrestrained growth in
electricity consumption.
It would be folly and a criminal neglect of our duty to future
generations to industrialise our last wild places temporarily to reduce
global CO2 emissions to 99.95% of their current levels when there are more
effective strategies left neglected.
Return to Home
Page Return to start of Case Against
Windfarms
V. CONCLUSION
The British government and governments around the world face very tough
decisions in the next two decades if they conclude that serious action is
required to tackle the emission of so-called 'greenhouse' gases. A number
of scientists are speculating that emissions will have to be cut by 60%
(the Kyoto Protocol called for 5%) to have any effect on global warming
(Costing the Earth BBC Radio 4 11 May 2000). At the same time,
nuclear power stations of the existing generation will reach the end of
their working lives in about 2010: they currently provide about 30% of UK
electricity without emissions.
There will have to be steep rises in energy prices for consumers who,
since privatisation and deregulation, have become used to ever-cheaper
energy.
There will have to be draconian restrictions on private car use and the
end of cheap air travel - these are the two fastest growing sources of CO2
emission.
Either a new generation of nuclear power stations has to be foisted on
an unwilling public or a reliable, non-intermittent energy source has to
be found to replace them and provide nearly a third of our supply: what is
it to be?
Country Guardian argues that tinkering at the edges of the problem by
supporting a technology like wind, which is unpredictable, intermittent
and dependent on machines whose output is derisory, is a dangerous
distraction and a piece of 'green' window dressing designed to allow the
government to avoid the problem.
It is pointless to address difficulties caused by a profligate use of
energy by creating another polluting source of energy supply. It is
unacceptable that our last great landscapes should be heavily
industrialised in a futile political gesture. Wilderness is a
non-renewable resource crucial to the sanity of a pressurised and
overcrowded world. It must not be sacrificed for a derisory and largely
illusory contribution to clean energy supply when there are far more
effective and cost effective strategies.
May, 2000
Country Guardian owes thanks to many people for the contributions which
they have made to this paper. If we single out for particular gratitude
Ted Luscombe, John Dodds and the late Geoffrey Ratcliff it does not in any
sense diminish the help of the others.